Crop factor wins again

dee

dee

Well-known
Local time
10:10 PM
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
1,925
We hear so much about the ' problems ' of APSc / 4/3rds crop factors on old lenses , but I have gained so much - I love getting in close for architectural deetails etc so -

Leica M8 , 50 becomes favourite 67mm

Leica Dig 3 , light 135 f 3.5 Rokkor to neat 270mm - at infinity focus free only .

Panasonic G1 plus CV 35 f2.5 , tiny 70mm . 45mm Rokkor to pancake 90 ...
[ 'cos I can actually focus the G1 LOL ] I have yet to attempt the monster 85 f 1.7 !

... and now , cast aside Sigma / Minolta 35 - 80 from late 90s , now a perfect 52 - 120 on my Sony A290 . I had thought that maybe too many lengths would be duplicated with the kit lens , but 27 -80 is quite otherwise .

I would quite contentedly take out only the ' 52 - 120 ' in 35mm terms , and must have a 50mm AF prime to complement my 50mm screw Takumar with true infinity adapter .

Anyone else welcome crop factors ?

dee
 
dee said:
Anyone else welcome crop factors ?
Click to expand...

Not me. I gave it benefit of the doubt with RD1, but that lasted only a day. Sold. Don't like my angle of view converted, don't like my depth of field converted.
Sports and nature photographers seem to love it though - more reach at a lesser expense.
 
I know that objectively the 24x36 area was an arbitrary choice, but I have consistently disliked the trade-offs of going smaller (DOF, DR) as much as going larger (again DOF, shutter speeds, operating speed, camera size). It is not for lack of trying (6x6, m4/3, APS-C), to me somehow the 35mm format is perfect.
 
I'd have no problems except that there are no dedicated primes available in the fov equiv of 28, 35, 50. there are close alternatives, but its not quite there.
 
crop factor/slop cractor

The picture is as wide as it is. Look through the viewfinder - if you like the angle take the shot, if you don't try another lens. Who cares about the numbers?
 
Never did like the idea of using old 35mm glass on crop factor cameras. I want to use a 28mm as a 28mm. OTH I have no quibbles with using a crop factor camera with glass that would give me the equivalent of 28mm on FF. The crop factor cameras may have some use for me in trying to do wildlife stuff. I guess it just depends what you want to do.

Bob
 
The crop factor was one reason for me to sell the R-D1s years ago because I am used to the field of view of certain focal lengths and also like wide-angle lenses. :)
 
For birding, the 1.5x crop is a blessing.. turns a 300 into a 450. But it's wreaked havoc at the normal to wide end. The 35-70 used to be the most versatile lens I had, but has completely lost its flexibility, and no, I'm not going to shell out over 1000 euro to replace it with a wider fast zoom. So the 20 sits on the DSLR a lot of the time, acting like a 35 after a little cropping.
 
nope no probs with crop factor! I generally shoot stopped down and prefocused anyway so I welcome the extra dof, it makes my life easier.

But I do have a problem with buying lenses that as bigger and/or heavier, slower and more expensive than they absolutely need to be, so I hate mounting FF lenses on crop sensors. I like crop cameras that offer dedicated primes.
 
Crops drove me crazy. I learned to use some zooms and that helped, the debth of field was wrong and image size in viewfinder is too small even with 100% cameras like D7000 Nikon. They are nice to carry all day due to small size and the new sensors are pretty nice.
The 16MP looks very nice next to my D3 at 12 as long as I keep ISO low. Technology will migrate and the D4 will be great at 24MP. Problem there is pushing all that data will tax older computers.

So there is room in the world for both.

16 MB is all 99% of us will need. Even my 6MP makes pretty nice images, 11x14 at iso 200 is great.
 
How do people who shoot both 35mm and 120 cope with the fact that their beloved 50mm wide angle lens on 120 becomes a 'standard' lens on 35mm?

Photographers have coped with the same focal length giving different views on different formats for many years before digital came out. It's no problem.

Ronnie
 
Double Negative said:
Very true. Unless you love wide angles...

Easy to look past it if you have lenses like the 12mm and 15mm Heliars, etc. but when you're shooting a digital Hasselblad, they only go so far - and the widest normal (non-fisheye) is a 40mm. As such, it's one of the most expensive in the line to boot.
Click to expand...

That's right if you are shooting a MF crop. But I bought my first 'crop camera', a Nikon D100 with a 12-24mm. The 12-24 was similar to, but wider than the 21mm I had previously used, so I never got the 'lost wide' syndrome.

I occasionally use the 12-24 on film Nikons at 18mm. It doesn't vignette much, and so is the widest lens I have on film and DX alike.
 
Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to 11mm on my crop cameras. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most your old film lenses go only as wide as 18mm?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's wider? Is it any wider?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's a lot wider, isn't it? It's not 18. You see, most blokes, you know, will be shooting at 18mm. You're on 11mm here, as wide as it will go; you're on 18mm on your lens. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to 11mm?
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. Much wider.
Marty DiBergi: But, when you crop your old beautiful ultrawides and superwides into medium wides and normals, you have no more ultrawides and superwides and have to buy new ones, if they make them?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven.
 
This thread reminds me of the intro to Leica M Advanced Photo School - discussing the impact of the introduction of SLRs. :)

Some win, some lose. Patience always wins.
 
when I started in photography I heard people talking about "magic lenses" and I simply bought it. I wasted valuable time and money trying to find those magic lenses, during which time I was blaming my crap photos on the fact that my lenses weren't magic. If I could turn back time I would spend that time and money on my photography instead.

I wish people didnt use such words to describe lenses.
 
Spyro said:
when I started in photography I heard people talking about "magic lenses" and I simply bought it. I wasted valuable time and money trying to find those magic lenses, during which time I was blaming my crap photos on the fact that my lenses weren't magic. If I could turn back time I would spend that time and money on my photography instead.

I wish people didnt use such words to describe lenses.
Click to expand...

When I say magic, I mean really really good lenses, not lenses having traits that cannot be quantified or are the result of potions and ethers being mixed with alchemic elements.

For instance, the Pentax 31mm and 43mm are gorgeous on full frame (film) bodies, but average on crop bodies. The canon 35mm f1.4L is wonderful on a full frame body, but becomes a massive and average 50mm on a crop body. The zeiss ZM 35mm biogon is a great 35mm lens on an m9, but becomes a very large (almost) 50 on an m8.
 
On m4/3, my cheap old thin Elmar 90/4 becomes a really excellent 180mm. It's so small that it draws no attention. A very different shooting experience. Don't knock it until you've tried it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom